49 N.E.3d 580
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2002 MCDTF conducted controlled buys; officers arrested D.A. and seized $1,340, of which $720 was alleged to be proceeds or used to facilitate drug dealing.
- D.A. was criminally convicted in 2003 of dealing and possession (cause FB-490). The State separately pursued a civil forfeiture (cause MC-292) and the trial court ordered the $720 forfeited.
- In 2014 D.A. petitioned under Indiana Code § 35-38-9-4 to expunge his conviction records; the petition was granted.
- Thirteen days later D.A. asked the court to extend the expungement to include the civil forfeiture records (MC-292); the trial court denied that request.
- D.A. appealed the denial, presenting the novel question whether Indiana's expungement statutes reach civil forfeiture records that "relate to" a felony conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.A. procedurally defaulted by seeking to amend/extend an expungement after entry | D.A.: filing was permissible (motion to correct error); State did not object in trial court | State: request was equivalent to a prohibited second expungement petition | No default — State waived objection by not raising it below; appellate court considers the merits |
| Whether § 35-38-9-4 and related provisions allow expungement of records beyond traditional "conviction records" | D.A.: statute’s phrase "records... that relate to the person’s felony conviction" is broad and includes related civil records like forfeiture files | State: expungement is limited to criminal arrest/conviction records; civil forfeiture records are not within scope | Statute ambiguous; interpret to require expungement of both conviction records and other court records that "relate" to the conviction |
| Whether civil forfeiture records ancillary to a conviction "relate" to that conviction for expungement purposes | D.A.: forfeiture here was premised on the same facts as the conviction and therefore relates | State: civil character of forfeiture means it cannot "relate" to a conviction; also argued lack of factual nexus (raised late) | Where civil forfeiture is ancillary to and premised on the criminal activity underlying the conviction, its records "relate" and may be expunged; State’s factual-nexus challenge was forfeited below |
| Whether expungement under § 35-38-9-7 merely labels public records and thus cannot provide requested relief | State: expunged records remain public but marked; marking is the only statutory change | D.A.: marking still effectuates statutory remedy and prevents stigma/discrimination | The statutory mechanism of marking/identifying as expunged is a legislative remedy and sufficient; court orders expungement of related forfeiture records |
Key Cases Cited
- Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1995) (State must show property was used to facilitate criminal activities before forfeiture)
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2013) (courts must not engraft words onto statutes)
- Prater v. State, 922 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles and giving effect to legislative language)
- J.B. v. State, 27 N.E.3d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (expungement statutes aim to mitigate stigmas of conviction)
- Brown v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (expressio unius interpretation principle)